Patterns of convergence in phonology, grammar and discourse

3.2. Variation and change in morphosyntax 
Six of the well known English morphosyntactic variables occurred relatively 
frequently in the recordings. This meant that for these features we could analyse 
patterns of variation across the three towns, and draw some comparisons with the 
findings of the phonological analysis. All six have nonstandard variants thought to be 
part of a generalised nonstandard variety of English typical of the urban centres in 

---

18 
present-day England (Cheshire et al 1989, Coupland 1988, Hughes and Trudgill 
1987). These are: 
1. multiple negation e.g. 
I like England…I’m happy with it…we haven’t got no 
diseases.. no nothing
(Reading; cf. standard English 
we haven’t got any diseases… 
nothing
) 
2. nonstandard 
was
e.g. 
we just held the brake and we was upside down all the way
(cf. Milton Keynes; standard English 
we were upside down
) 
3. nonstandard 
were
e.g
. we was in the first year and he was in the last year weren’t 
he?
(Reading; cf. standard English 
he was in the first year wasn’t he?
)
4. third person singular negative 
don’t 
e.g. 
my mum don’t go to work
(Milton Keynes; 
cf. standard English 
my mum doesn’t go to work
) 
4. preterite form 
come
e.g
. it [my favourite food] used to be steak until the mad cow 
come about
(Milton Keynes; cf. 
came about
) 
5. preterite form 
don
e for full verb DO e.g. 
he used to play for Reading football club 
and he done his knees in so he’s had loads of operation
s (Reading; cf. standard 
English 
he
did his knee in
)
6. relative pronoun 
what
e.g
. have you noticed though there’s no lads what want to do 
it really
(Hull; cf. standard English 
no lads who want to do it
)
We calculated a frequency index for these features following the usual variationist 
procedure (in other words, calculating the percentage of nonstandard variants relative 
to the total number of standard and nonstandard variants). Table 4 displays the results. 
 

---

19 
Table 4. Frequency indices of nonstandard variants and total number of variants in the 
speech of working class adolescents in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull
variant 
frequency index of nonstandard variants (total number 
of standard and nonstandard forms)
Milton 
Keynes 
Reading Hull 
negative concord 
33.7 (92) 
37.2 (43) 
67.0 (68) 
nonstandard
 was
20.6 (63) 
28.9 (45) 
78.3 (69) 
nonstandard
 were
66.7 (6) 
36.0 (25) 
3.1 (224) 
nonstandard
 don’t
47.2 (36) 
63.6 (33) 
25.0 (28) 
preterite 
come 
56.8 
(37) 
82.4 
(17) 
72.3 
(33) 
preterite 
done 
85.7 
(7) 33.3 
(24) 
7.7 
(13) 
relative 
what
3.2 (95) 
3.8 (52) 
25.5 (51) 
____________________________________________________________________ 
Although the total number of variants is low in a few cases (for example, for preterite 
done
in Milton Keynes) the table broadly confirms that these common core 
nonstandard features are robustly used in the three towns (the nonstandard relative 
pronoun seems a possible exception, but further investigation has to wait for future 
work). It is striking that they are as frequent overall in the new town of Milton Keynes 
as in the longer-established urban centres of Reading and Hull.
In contrast, Table 5 gives the frequency indices for two regional features: 
nonstandard verbal -
s
in Reading and the zero definite article in Hull. In Reading and 
the south-west of England generally all present tense verbs can have the -